mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010327.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 40\n\nThe Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is therefore DENIED.\n\nI. BACKGROUND\n\nA. Jury Selection Process\n\nThe jury selection process in this case was designed to screen a sufficient number of prospective jurors for the high-profile trial while also complying with the Southern District of New York's COVID-19 protocols and protecting the health and safety of prospective jurors, court staff, and case participants during the unprecedented pandemic. Selection proceeded in three stages: a written pre-screen questionnaire, one-on-one oral voir dire, and, finally, the exercise of peremptory strikes. The Court developed the questionnaire and voir dire with input from the parties. See Dkt. No. 367; see also Oct. 21, 2021 Tr., Dkt. No. 459. The questionnaire was designed to pre-screen for \"the major for-cause strike issues in the case\"—that is, \"the trial's length and schedule, a juror's personal knowledge of the parties, [the] extent of a juror's awareness of publicity about the case and the defendant, and any bias due to publicity or as a result of the nature of the charges.\" Oct. 21, 2021 Tr. at 5. In-person voir dire would then focus on appropriate follow-up questions based on questionnaire responses, additional questions more appropriately asked orally, and background information to aid the parties' exercise of informed peremptory challenges. Id. at 7.\n\nWhen prospective jurors arrived to complete the questionnaire, and when they returned for voir dire, they watched videotaped instructions from this Court. The Court prepared those instructions with the parties' input. Dkt. Nos. 366, 404, 427. These instructions briefly explained the jury selection process, explained the nature of the charges (using the same language that the parties proposed for the jury questionnaire), and instructed jurors not to discuss the case or consume any media about the case.\n\n4\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010327",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is therefore DENIED.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. BACKGROUND\n\nA. Jury Selection Process",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The jury selection process in this case was designed to screen a sufficient number of prospective jurors for the high-profile trial while also complying with the Southern District of New York's COVID-19 protocols and protecting the health and safety of prospective jurors, court staff, and case participants during the unprecedented pandemic. Selection proceeded in three stages: a written pre-screen questionnaire, one-on-one oral voir dire, and, finally, the exercise of peremptory strikes. The Court developed the questionnaire and voir dire with input from the parties. See Dkt. No. 367; see also Oct. 21, 2021 Tr., Dkt. No. 459. The questionnaire was designed to pre-screen for \"the major for-cause strike issues in the case\"—that is, \"the trial's length and schedule, a juror's personal knowledge of the parties, [the] extent of a juror's awareness of publicity about the case and the defendant, and any bias due to publicity or as a result of the nature of the charges.\" Oct. 21, 2021 Tr. at 5. In-person voir dire would then focus on appropriate follow-up questions based on questionnaire responses, additional questions more appropriately asked orally, and background information to aid the parties' exercise of informed peremptory challenges. Id. at 7.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "When prospective jurors arrived to complete the questionnaire, and when they returned for voir dire, they watched videotaped instructions from this Court. The Court prepared those instructions with the parties' input. Dkt. Nos. 366, 404, 427. These instructions briefly explained the jury selection process, explained the nature of the charges (using the same language that the parties proposed for the jury questionnaire), and instructed jurors not to discuss the case or consume any media about the case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010327",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/22",
      "Oct. 21, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "653",
      "367",
      "459",
      "366",
      "404",
      "427"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and clear. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}